Is stopping at red lights now optional?

prowla

diystarter7 said:

Zinger549 said:

diystarter7 said:

Hi

The simple answer is no!!

The thread title is misleading and could confuse the already less skilled/confused that may read these threads and think its now optional when clearly it is not!  



Thanks

I really don't think someone is going to start driving through red lights because of the title of this thread.

Hi



Since you posted here others are now talking about some cyclists, battery scooter riders already see it as "optional" as they have seen many jump the red lights which is illegal!! (you see the confusion this title is causing?)


When I read the headline, I thought, hold on, really, are we going/considering USA style of highway code.  Are we getting the American way of driving regrading  red lights where you can turn right on a red light at many junctions where allowed!! 

 I bet you many that read these threads today, and over  years to come will see my concerns
"

""Is stopping at red lights now optional?"   

I hope you can now see my concerns as I thought the UK was heading for this option reading the title. I don't know about you but many times I just read the title and move on and often apply this rule to forums and online news media and if I had not read the context, I would have been wondering, if some riders do it as detailed above and are we heading to USA style, ie turn right on a red light????  (I hope you can now appreciate my point and those that thumbed up you)

NB: CAUTION ADVISED AS THE QUOTE AND THE LINK BELOW  APPLIES TO THE USA & NOT THE UNITED KINDOM

Turning Right on a Red Light - Orlando Forum - TripAdvisor

https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk › ShowTopic-g34515-i1...

10 answers

Yes you can turn right on a red light unless it says otherwise. We've always found the driving pretty straightforward in the States.

=============++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Personally, if a thread like this is  ie non-money saver allowed on these forums, the title I would have given it to stop any confusion is:

WHY ARE SOME PEOPLE IGNORING RED LIGHTS RULES? ?

Thanks

The US right-turn-on-red works quite well.

We don't have it (left-turn-on-red) in the UK and I'm not so sure how well it would go.

user1977

diystarter7 said:

Zinger549 said:

diystarter7 said:

Hi

The simple answer is no!!

The thread title is misleading and could confuse the already less skilled/confused that may read these threads and think its now optional when clearly it is not!  



Thanks

I really don't think someone is going to start driving through red lights because of the title of this thread.

Since you posted here others are now talking about some cyclists, battery scooter riders already see it as "optional" as they have seen many jump the red lights which is illegal!! (you see the confusion this title is causing?)

I haven't seen anybody else on the thread suggesting that it might be legal for any drivers/riders to go through a red light in the UK.

facade

I've thought that driving standards are deteriorating for over 40 years now.

I can only conclude that back in the day, everyone was an utterly fantastic driver!

I think it is really the fact that there are more cars on the road all the time*, so you see more examples of poor driving, and only remember the cars that cause you to brake, change direction, mess about with the gears or cause other drivers to furiously blow their horn, the 500 cars that had no impact on you you don't notice.

I suppose we were a bit more skilled in The Olden Days, as nowadays cars pretty much drive themselves, even in my woeful Renault Nissan, I can treat all the controls as switches and the car just gets on with the job.

Time to start off? Mash the accelerator into the floor, the traction control will sort it out.

Time to stop? Stamp the brake into the floor, the abs will cope.

Time to go change direction? spin the wheel to full lock, the electronic stability program will cope.

It is raining? the wipers work by themselves

Dark? The lights just come on.

In The Olden Days you used to have to have a slight awareness of weather conditions and be careful with the controls

The big difference I notice is that in The Olden Days I often passed cars that were stuck in the hedge on bends, whereas now they seem to be replaced by cars that are upside down in the most unlikely places- I think this is because eventually there is a point where the laws of Physics triumph over the cars electronics and you get a spectacular crash, whereas in The Olden Days you'd have been travelling a lot slower and would have just dropped a wheel in the ditch and stopped, rather than rolling over completely.

*In The Olden Days, if I took a day off work to go somewhere in the day, the roads were virtually empty, now I'm retired I notice that they seem pretty much gridlocked al the time except late at night.

Norman_Castle

facade said:

I think it is really the fact that there are more cars on the road all the time*, so you see more examples of poor driving, and only remember the cars that cause you to brake, change direction, mess about with the gears or cause other drivers to furiously blow their horn, the 500 cars that had no impact on you you don't notice.

You're right that more drivers makes a difference but I also think drivers learn by example which often works well but jumping lights and other poor or discourteous driving is becoming more common so could possibly become the accepted standard.

Car_54

Norman_Castle said:

Car_54 said:

Norman_Castle said:

It also seems that you now don't have to wait at a zebra crossing if the crossing pedestrian is no longer directly ahead of you.

 

You don’t (and never have). The law says the pedestrian has precedence. That doesn’t mean you have to wait until he has crossed completely.

Are you sure? I've always waited until a pedestrian had fully crossed the road. I don't remember being taught to do this but it was how all drivers treated crossings.

Rule 19

"Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. Drivers and riders should give way to pedestrians waiting to cross and MUST give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing (see Rule H2). Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped."

The above states drivers must give way to pedestrians on a crossing, it doesn't say only when ahead of you in the lane you are in.

The law [The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1997, section 25(1)]:
"Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian."

'Precedence' (or 'give way' in the HV) means that you must stop and let the pedestrian cross. You don't have to wait until they've cleared the crossing completely.
Similarly, at a roundabout, 'give way' to a vehicle doesn't mean you have to wait for it to leave the roundabout.

Norman_Castle

Car_54 said:

Norman_Castle said:

Car_54 said:

Norman_Castle said:

It also seems that you now don't have to wait at a zebra crossing if the crossing pedestrian is no longer directly ahead of you.

 

You don’t (and never have). The law says the pedestrian has precedence. That doesn’t mean you have to wait until he has crossed completely.

Are you sure? I've always waited until a pedestrian had fully crossed the road. I don't remember being taught to do this but it was how all drivers treated crossings.

Rule 19

"Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. Drivers and riders should give way to pedestrians waiting to cross and MUST give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing (see Rule H2). Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped."

The above states drivers must give way to pedestrians on a crossing, it doesn't say only when ahead of you in the lane you are in.

The law [The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1997, section 25(1)]:
"Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian."

'Precedence' (or 'give way' in the HV) means that you must stop and let the pedestrian cross. You don't have to wait until they've cleared the crossing completely.
Similarly, at a roundabout, 'give way' to a vehicle doesn't mean you have to wait for it to leave the roundabout.

You seem to have given your interpretation of the law. The law as given by you includes, "Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing" Aren't the limits of the crossing defined by the markings on the road and as such include the full width of the road?

Car_54

Norman_Castle said:

Car_54 said:

Norman_Castle said:

Car_54 said:

Norman_Castle said:

It also seems that you now don't have to wait at a zebra crossing if the crossing pedestrian is no longer directly ahead of you.

 

You don’t (and never have). The law says the pedestrian has precedence. That doesn’t mean you have to wait until he has crossed completely.

Are you sure? I've always waited until a pedestrian had fully crossed the road. I don't remember being taught to do this but it was how all drivers treated crossings.

Rule 19

"Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. Drivers and riders should give way to pedestrians waiting to cross and MUST give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing (see Rule H2). Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped."

The above states drivers must give way to pedestrians on a crossing, it doesn't say only when ahead of you in the lane you are in.

The law [The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1997, section 25(1)]:
"Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian."

'Precedence' (or 'give way' in the HV) means that you must stop and let the pedestrian cross. You don't have to wait until they've cleared the crossing completely.
Similarly, at a roundabout, 'give way' to a vehicle doesn't mean you have to wait for it to leave the roundabout.

You seem to have given your interpretation of the law. The law as given by you includes, "Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing" Aren't the limits of the crossing defined by the markings on the road and as such include the full width of the road?

The argument is not about the meaning of 'limits of the crossing', but about what 'precedence' means. In other legislation the word 'priority' is used, which is probably clearer. In any event the HC says 'give way', which does have a clear meaning.

It would have been easy for parliament (and the HC) simply to prohibit proceeding if a pedestrian is on any part of the crossing, if that was what they meant. But they didn't.

Norman_Castle

Car_54 said:

Norman_Castle said:

Car_54 said:

Norman_Castle said:

Car_54 said:

Norman_Castle said:

It also seems that you now don't have to wait at a zebra crossing if the crossing pedestrian is no longer directly ahead of you.

 

You don’t (and never have). The law says the pedestrian has precedence. That doesn’t mean you have to wait until he has crossed completely.

Are you sure? I've always waited until a pedestrian had fully crossed the road. I don't remember being taught to do this but it was how all drivers treated crossings.

Rule 19

"Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. Drivers and riders should give way to pedestrians waiting to cross and MUST give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing (see Rule H2). Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped."

The above states drivers must give way to pedestrians on a crossing, it doesn't say only when ahead of you in the lane you are in.

The law [The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1997, section 25(1)]:
"Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian."

'Precedence' (or 'give way' in the HV) means that you must stop and let the pedestrian cross. You don't have to wait until they've cleared the crossing completely.
Similarly, at a roundabout, 'give way' to a vehicle doesn't mean you have to wait for it to leave the roundabout.

You seem to have given your interpretation of the law. The law as given by you includes, "Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing" Aren't the limits of the crossing defined by the markings on the road and as such include the full width of the road?

It would have been easy for parliament (and the HC) simply to prohibit proceeding if a pedestrian is on any part of the crossing, if that was what they meant. But they didn't.

Again, your interpretation. Parliament and the HC doesn't define which parts of the crossing have to be observed as its presumed its treated as one "within the limits of a Zebra crossing".

https://www.roadlawbarristers.co.uk/pedestrian-crossings-what-are-the-rules/

1.Stopping “within the limits of a crossing”.

You must not stop your vehicle “within the limits of a crossing” unless (a) you are prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond your control, or (b) it is necessary for you to stop to avoid an accident.[3]

It is important to note that the “limits of a crossing” refers to the black and white striped area which forms the crossing itself, and NOT to the zig-zagged area leading up to the crossing.

user1977

Car_54 said:

Norman_Castle said:

Car_54 said:

Norman_Castle said:

Car_54 said:

Norman_Castle said:

It also seems that you now don't have to wait at a zebra crossing if the crossing pedestrian is no longer directly ahead of you.

 

You don’t (and never have). The law says the pedestrian has precedence. That doesn’t mean you have to wait until he has crossed completely.

Are you sure? I've always waited until a pedestrian had fully crossed the road. I don't remember being taught to do this but it was how all drivers treated crossings.

Rule 19

"Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. Drivers and riders should give way to pedestrians waiting to cross and MUST give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing (see Rule H2). Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped."

The above states drivers must give way to pedestrians on a crossing, it doesn't say only when ahead of you in the lane you are in.

The law [The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1997, section 25(1)]:
"Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian."

'Precedence' (or 'give way' in the HV) means that you must stop and let the pedestrian cross. You don't have to wait until they've cleared the crossing completely.
Similarly, at a roundabout, 'give way' to a vehicle doesn't mean you have to wait for it to leave the roundabout.

You seem to have given your interpretation of the law. The law as given by you includes, "Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing" Aren't the limits of the crossing defined by the markings on the road and as such include the full width of the road?

The argument is not about the meaning of 'limits of the crossing', but about what 'precedence' means. In other legislation the word 'priority' is used, which is probably clearer. In any event the HC says 'give way', which does have a clear meaning.

It would have been easy for parliament (and the HC) simply to prohibit proceeding if a pedestrian is on any part of the crossing, if that was what they meant. But they didn't.

I would agree with this. Taking another example, if I'm already on a roundabout then I have precedence over traffic joining it. But they don't need to wait until I've left the roundabout before they join, just not to crash into me.

Though in practice I will wait for pedestrians to get across before driving on.

diystarter7

prowla said:

diystarter7 said:

Zinger549 said:

diystarter7 said:

Hi

The simple answer is no!!

The thread title is misleading and could confuse the already less skilled/confused that may read these threads and think its now optional when clearly it is not!  



Thanks

I really don't think someone is going to start driving through red lights because of the title of this thread.

Hi



Since you posted here others are now talking about some cyclists, battery scooter riders already see it as "optional" as they have seen many jump the red lights which is illegal!! (you see the confusion this title is causing?)


When I read the headline, I thought, hold on, really, are we going/considering USA style of highway code.  Are we getting the American way of driving regrading  red lights where you can turn right on a red light at many junctions where allowed!! 

 I bet you many that read these threads today, and over  years to come will see my concerns
"

""Is stopping at red lights now optional?"   

I hope you can now see my concerns as I thought the UK was heading for this option reading the title. I don't know about you but many times I just read the title and move on and often apply this rule to forums and online news media and if I had not read the context, I would have been wondering, if some riders do it as detailed above and are we heading to USA style, ie turn right on a red light????  (I hope you can now appreciate my point and those that thumbed up you)

NB: CAUTION ADVISED AS THE QUOTE AND THE LINK BELOW  APPLIES TO THE USA & NOT THE UNITED KINDOM

Turning Right on a Red Light - Orlando Forum - TripAdvisor

https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk › ShowTopic-g34515-i1...

10 answers

Yes you can turn right on a red light unless it says otherwise. We've always found the driving pretty straightforward in the States.

=============++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Personally, if a thread like this is  ie non-money saver allowed on these forums, the title I would have given it to stop any confusion is:

WHY ARE SOME PEOPLE IGNORING RED LIGHTS RULES? ?

Thanks

The US right-turn-on-red works quite well.

We don't have it (left-turn-on-red) in the UK and I'm not so sure how well it would go.

Hi
Indeed, yes it is.

Re UK/England, what we have noted is that they often have more room/wider roads and slip off to the right and roads are straight so you can better see/judge the vehicles coming from the left.

It works well like you said, very well indeed.

It's a pity that the title is easily confusing.

I also like their STOP at junction signs, again they have bigger/wider roads and easier to use that system.

thank you